If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register or Login
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Originally posted by oktronic
I think that answered it. Did you really think Stepanov would refer to 15 years of work as "quick and dirty"? lol

I know you are looking for anything to help you argue your opinion, but perhaps you should spend a little time looking into the mind of the creator of STL and into those who came long before him. Even Stroustrup wasn't eager to support STL and made Stepanov modify it before he would offer it up as a standard, maybe you should look at why?. A little research can go along way.

INTERVIEWER: Would you please tell us the most unforgettable, the happiest and the most regrettable things you felt in the course of standardization?

STROUSTRUP: ...the final 1998 vote ratifying the ISO standard. In between those events, the vote to accept the STL as part of the standard library standard stands out as a most happy event.

... (and later) ...

STROUSTRUP: Note that one major reason that the STL succeeded was that it was a technical breakthrough. It wasn't simply "yet another container library", so it didn't have to compete directly against the many existing container libraries (several of which were of excellent quality).

Yes, Stroustrup had a few early arguments on details, but then he became one of the strongest supporters of the STL -- calling its acceptance as one of the happiest events in the C++ standardization. He even said it "wasn't simply 'yet another container library.'" So, oktronic, I don't know where you get the idea that the STL was added simply as a "quick and dirty container library." There is no support for this argument! (Or are you just trying to play devil's advocate and get on people's nerves?)

Originally posted by KevinHall
You are missing the point. Does the following code mean that C++ is a bad language?

code posted...

That code is Galathaea's (hope you don't mind)...

I don't mind the post, but I feel a little awkward because I'm actually kind of proud of that piece of code. I think a more appropriate link might be found over here where we can see one of the first debates I entered coming into these boards. In particular, it shows me being wrong. Which I have been numerous times in the past and will be numerous times in the future. I don't know exactly why, but somehow I feel that reading through the psychologies displayed in that thread can provide an important compare / contrast for this thread. That was certainly the turning point for me in understanding that the quality of posts over at this site is quite top notch and that I still had a lot to learn. Sure I still front (this thread is a great example), because that is my nature, but I find it very informative to look over my failures every now and then as well, to see where I need to improve...

Originally posted by galathaea
I don't mind the post, but I feel a little awkward because I'm actually kind of proud of that piece of code. I think a more appropriate link might be found over here where we can see one of the first debates I entered coming into these boards. In particular, it shows me being wrong. Which I have been numerous times in the past and will be numerous times in the future. I don't know exactly why, but somehow I feel that reading through the psychologies displayed in that thread can provide an important compare / contrast for this thread. That was certainly the turning point for me in understanding that the quality of posts over at this site is quite top notch and that I still had a lot to learn. Sure I still front (this thread is a great example), because that is my nature, but I find it very informative to look over my failures every now and then as well, to see where I need to improve...

Not the goto thread, I'll do anything you ask, but please not the goto thread.

Haven't we beaten this horse to death already??? Both hooves that is...

A follow-up on the timing results I had with Dinkumware's STL on VC.NET 2003. The issue is not that Dinkumware is slow, but that *even in Release mode*, the IDE still debugs memory allocation and deallocation through new. This makes Dinkumware appear very slow. Once the program is run from the command-line, this artifact disappears and it is just as fast as the other STLs: